Last Call Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-ivi-icmp-address-
review-ietf-v6ops-ivi-icmp-address-genart-lc-dupont-2012-09-27-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-ivi-icmp-address
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 07)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2012-09-25
Requested 2012-09-14
Authors Xing Li, Congxiao Bao, Dan Wing, Ramji Vaithianathan, Geoff Huston
Draft last updated 2012-09-27
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -?? by Francis Dupont
Genart Telechat review of -?? by Francis Dupont
Secdir Last Call review of -?? by Tina Tsou
Assignment Reviewer Francis Dupont
State Completed
Review review-ietf-v6ops-ivi-icmp-address-genart-lc-dupont-2012-09-27
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2012-09-27

Review
review-ietf-v6ops-ivi-icmp-address-genart-lc-dupont-2012-09-27

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at

<

http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-v6ops-ivi-icmp-address-06.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20120920
IETF LC End Date: 20120925
IESG Telechat date: unknown

Summary: Ready

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments:
 In general the language itself could be improved even there is nothing
 which is hard to understand (i.e., it is a comment only on the form).
 I suggest to get some help from English native authors or to leave this
 to the RFC Editor...

 - 3 page 3: an non-IPv4- -> a non-IPv4-

 - 3 page 3: (style) bound for to (I suggest "sent to")

 - 3.1 page 3: uRPF -> unicast reverse path forwarding (uRPF)
  (note: uRPF is in the RFC Editor abbrev list but not as "well known")

 - 3.1 page 3: (style) origination (I suggest "origin" or "source")

 - 3.2 page 4: a question (vs a comment): is RFC 5837 widely supported?

 - 8 page 5: Henrik Levkowetz is included twice

 - 9.1 page 5: BCP 84 is included as a normative reference?
  (I have no concern but I'd like to warn this point is questionable)

 - 9.2 page 6: I am not sure ISO IS 3166 codes are appropriate in
  postal addresses, so CN -> China?

Regards

Francis.Dupont at fdupont.fr